It seems to me that these days you can’t get away from [in the news] the constant bickering between the Jews & Muslims.

Why? What are the reasons?

I know there is the whole Jerusalem issue, but what else? There are probably hundreds of reasons but what are the main points. Who did what to who and why?

I’m not condemning either side here, nor am I taking sides, this is a legitimate request for information and to have a debate about the particular facts.

Any links to relevant sites would be nice but no propaganda please!

Isn't it just because they are both religions that don't realy have room for anything other than their own view, and anyone who sees things differently is wrong ?

If that was the case both Islam and Judaism would be doing the same with every other religion which isn't happening in the same ferocity as the current Jews Vs Muslims problem.

I have to say I've never realy understood religion, to say your god is all about love and harmony one day and then go and kill someone in that gods name the next day makes no sense to me.

Originally posted by nick2
I have to say I've never realy understood religion, to say your god is all about love and harmony one day and then go and kill someone in that gods name the next day makes no sense to me.

spot on:thumbsup:

In a word - Israel

There were large Jewish populations in many Arabic countries who co-existed peacefully until the establishment of the Jewish state and eviction of the Palestinians from their land.

Since then the Jewish populations of the many Arabic countries have been forced to convert to Islam or leave.

Probably the establishment of Israel has hurt the jewish cause more than helped it.

Because the Sheep need Herding. The Herders are their Religious Leaders and these crazy bored Leaders decide who their Sheep (followers) should Hate! Thus the Sheep (Followers) hate whoever they are told to, simple isn't it?

It is the formation of Israel and Our Govenrment taking Arab Land to create a Jewish state.

Originally posted by Cliff Clavin
Because the Sheep need Herding. The Herders are their Religious Leaders and these crazy bored Leaders decide who their Sheep (followers) should Hate! Thus the Sheep (Followers) hate whoever they are told to, simple isn't it?

I think it goes a little deaper than that. Im talking about evenst that have casued this. i dont remember any Jewish head of state telling fellow Jewish followers to hate Muslims.

Originally posted by Preacher Man
It is the formation of Israel and Our Govenrment taking Arab Land to create a Jewish state.

I think you're a little miss-informed there.

AFAIK, and correct me if im wrong but in 1948, the British mandate over Palestine expired, Jewish authorities then declared the establishment of the State of Israel.

Back during the crusades Jews and Muslims fought side by sid against the Christians.

Read up on the creation of Isreal! There was no Jewish authorities before then :thumbsup:

Originally posted by nick2
I have to say I've never realy understood religion, to say your god is all about love and harmony one day and then go and kill someone in that gods name the next day makes no sense to me.

very true


religion is the root of all evil and as long as there is religion there will be killing

Originally posted by Preacher Man
It is the formation of Israel and Our Govenrment taking Arab Land to create a Jewish state. 1948 the balfour agreement, thats when most of the trouble started, they were given a set piece of land but over the years have expanded it by terrorising the indigienous population,backed up by the uk and the usa

Originally posted by Preacher Man
Read up on the creation of Isreal! There was no Jewish authorities before then :thumbsup:

I think you'll find there where but not recognised.

Read: http://encarta.msn.com/encyclopedia_761575008_10/Israel_(country).html

You'll see they are refered to as authorities.

Seraphis, your question as to why Jews and Muslims hate each other so much is not originally down so much to the religious aspect of it. It is in fact a tribal or racial conflict between Jews and Arabs, much of which has existed for centuries, only involving other Muslims in recent years really.

What is conceived as the modern epoch of the conflict’s resumption, goes back to the 1880’s when Jews bought land in the middle east (Holy Land) from the then Ottoman (Turkish) rulers. This sowed the seeds for grievances from the Palestinians and other Arabs, resulting in riots and bloodshed during the 1920’s. The establishment of the state of Israel in 1948 has then taken things progressively to what we see today. Probably the advent of better communications has brought many more Muslims into the fray, with a cry to align with their fellow Islamic followers: after all, what interest would say a Pakistani or Indonesian have had in a far flung dispute prior to this?

PottShrigley mentions that prior to 1948 and Israel’s formation, Jews and Arabs co-existed in Arab lands peacefully. In some cases that is true, but the reality in a lot of states was that Jews were treated as second-class citizens, were often persecuted and had fewer rights than indigenous Arabs. Many had fled Catholic Spain at the time of the Inquisition, where after the overthrow of the Moors, the Christians sought to purge the country of all adherents of Islam and Judaism. The history of the Jews and the Moors prior to then in Spain is a whole subject in itself and one I have read a lot about over the past ten years, since my parents moved to Andalucia. Many have tried to portray that as a utopian understanding between all the faiths: the ruling Moors exercising a benign rule over everybody, the truth when you investigate further appears very much the opposite.

The real origins of the enmity between Jews and Arabs we’ll probably never really know for sure. You have literally thousands of websites at your disposal, devoted to the views of the causes from both sides of the fence. You’ll probably be mightily bored with it all, after a few hours!:gag:

Originally posted by serapis
I think you're a little miss-informed there.

AFAIK, and correct me if im wrong but in 1948, the British mandate over Palestine expired, Jewish authorities then declared the establishment of the State of Israel.

Palestine wasn't the property of the British to give away though. Like all the other British empire colonies, they went halfway round the world and occupied a country that had absolutely nothing to do with them. Just because someone takes a nation by force, it still doesn't mean that it's theirs. A country always belongs to its people, i.e. the palestinians.

Originally posted by Daley
Palestine wasn't the property of the British to give away though. Like all the other British empire colonies, they went halfway round the world and occupied a country that had absolutely nothing to do with them. Just because someone takes a nation by force, it still doesn't mean that it's theirs. A country always belongs to its people, i.e. the palestinians.

Britian didn't go and conquer Palestine as such. Whilst at war with the Ottoman Empire in WWI, British forces defeated the Turks and were left holding the area for the rest of the war. At the war's conclusion the League of Nations, the forerunner of the UN, elected Britain to administer the territory due to the vacuum left from the collapse of the Turkish Empire. Following that the League of Nations, not Britain, decreed that a homeland would be created for the Jews in a decision made back in 1922 called the Palestine Mandate.

Originally posted by Daley
Palestine wasn't the property of the British to give away though. Like all the other British empire colonies, they went halfway round the world and occupied a country that had absolutely nothing to do with them. Just because someone takes a nation by force, it still doesn't mean that it's theirs. A country always belongs to its people, i.e. the palestinians.

To quote wikipedia:

Before the end of World War I, Palestine was a part of the Ottoman Empire. The British, under General Allenby, defeated the Turkish forces in 1917 and occupied Palestine and Syria. The land was administered by the British for the remainder of the war. The British military administration ended starvation with the aid of food supplies from Egypt, successfully fought typhus and cholera epidemics and significantly improved the water supply to Jerusalem. They reduced corruption by paying the Arab and Jewish judges higher salaries. Communications were improved by new railway and telegraph lines.

From: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Mandate_of_Palestine

So the British didn't go concurring, in reality where liberators.

As good as this sounds for us Brits I would not use wiki to reference a contested subject!

Originally posted by Preacher Man
As good as this sounds for us Brits I would not use wiki to reference a contested subject!

I find the discussion behind the entries equally interesting.

In this case - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:British_Mandate_of_Palestine

Originally posted by Daley
Palestine wasn't the property of the British to give away though. Like all the other British empire colonies, they went halfway round the world and occupied a country that had absolutely nothing to do with them. Just because someone takes a nation by force, it still doesn't mean that it's theirs. A country always belongs to its people, i.e. the palestinians. i agree one hundred percent with your post, the balfour agreement was set up to allow the uk and the usa to still maintain a foot hold in the east after the palistinians won their indipendance

Originally posted by daverity
Britian didn't go and conquer Palestine as such. Whilst at war with the Ottoman Empire in WWI, British forces defeated the Turks and were left holding the area for the rest of the war. At the war's conclusion the League of Nations, the forerunner of the UN, elected Britain to administer the territory due to the vacuum left from the collapse of the Turkish Empire. Following that the League of Nations, not Britain, decreed that a homeland would be created for the Jews in a decision made back in 1922 called the Palestine Mandate. then why the balfour agreement ? and why british troops to clear the way for them ? why the british judicial procedures when it came to hanging members of the jewish sturn gang who were bombing british forces in the new land ? why does britain and america still pour millions of dollars/pounds into israel each year instead of the un ?

Originally posted by Preacher Man
As good as this sounds for us Brits I would not use wiki to reference a contested subject!

I have quoted both Encata and wiki. Any chance you can give details of the materials you have used to back up your arguments?

Originally posted by depoix
then why the balfour agreement ? and why british troops to clear the way for them ? why the british judicial procedures when it came to hanging members of the jewish sturn gang who were bombing british forces in the new land ? why does britain and america still pour millions of dollars/pounds into israel each year instead of the un ?

I know the US gives at least $3billion in both Economic and Military aid to Israel but I didn't think the UK gave anything. Where are you getting this from?

Depoix,
My post was in answer to Daley's accusation that Britain went deliberately on a colonisation spree in Palestine and took Palestine by force. This is simply not the truth. Britain was legitimately at war with the Ottoman Empire, which then had control of Palestine and other areas and was entitled to engage its enemy in battle. Having defeated the Turks, the area had to be governed in some way and occupied, certainly for the duration of the war-that is a fact of warfare.

Where somebody is then perhaps entitled to question sharp-practice by the British government is that in an effort to engage the US in the war, they sought to court the powerful US Jewish lobby by issuing the Balfour letter and the subsequent declaration of a Jewish homeland. You can argue all day as to the rights and wrongs of it but it was endorsed broadly by the then international community. I hope this answers your question.

As far as the Stern gang (not Sturn) they were a product of the late 1940's and not the period I was discussing, the end of WWI and its immediate aftermath.

Similarly, the question of US aid to Israel (I'm unaware that the UK donates any currently) not really anything to do with a question of historical accuracy from 90 years ago.

Originally posted by depoix
i agree one hundred percent with your post, the balfour agreement was set up to allow the uk and the usa to still maintain a foot hold in the east after the palistinians won their indipendance

Depoix,
This statement totally disregards what is an irrefutable fact with regards to the United States. United States post WWI foreign policy was strictly isolationist in that period and right up to 1941 when the Japanese bombed Pearl Harbour. This is a very well-documented policy and ironically one for which the US has been roundly criticised. It is felt by some students of history that a more involved US may well have checked the spread of 1930's fascism or brought it's downfall a lot quicker.

It's true that Britain certainly wanted a toehold in the area and sympathetic friends, due to it's proximity to the Suez Canal and the trade routes to India and the rest of the Empire.

Originally posted by daverity
Depoix,
My post was in answer to Daley's accusation that Britain went deliberately on a colonisation spree in Palestine and took Palestine by force. This is simply not the truth. Britain was legitimately at war with the Ottoman Empire, which then had control of Palestine and other areas and was entitled to engage its enemy in battle. Having defeated the Turks, the area had to be governed in some way and occupied, certainly for the duration of the war-that is a fact of warfare.

Where somebody is then perhaps entitled to question sharp-practice by the British government is that in an effort to engage the US in the war, they sought to court the powerful US Jewish lobby by issuing the Balfour letter and the subsequent declaration of a Jewish homeland. You can argue all day as to the rights and wrongs of it but it was endorsed broadly by the then international community. I hope this answers your question.

As far as the Stern gang (not Sturn) they were a product of the late 1940's and not the period I was discussing, the end of WWI and its immediate aftermath.

Similarly, the question of US aid to Israel (I'm unaware that the UK donates any currently) not really anything to do with a question of historical accuracy from 90 years ago.

And why were they engaged in this war with the Ottoman empire? Colonial control. Two imperial powers scrapping to carve up as much of the world between them as possible. Whether Britain attacked Palestine directly or took it from the Turks, it's still imperialism, and cannot be justified. Palestine does not fall within the boundaries of Great Britain, so therefore has nothing to do with Great Britain. Same with India, Hong Kong, Australia, the Falklands, Gibraltar etc. Going halfway round the world and invading somewhere doesn't give you any kind of legitimate claim to it.

Originally posted by Daley
And why were they engaged in this war with the Ottoman empire? Colonial control. Two imperial powers scrapping to carve up as much of the world between them as possible. Whether Britain attacked Palestine directly or took it from the Turks, it's still imperialism, and cannot be justified. Palestine does not fall within the boundaries of Great Britain, so therefore has nothing to do with Great Britain. Same with India, Hong Kong, Australia, the Falklands, Gibraltar etc. Going halfway round the world and invading somewhere doesn't give you any kind of legitimate claim to it.

It appears that you have a very selective memory for historical facts Daley.
The Ottoman Empire chose to go to war with the Allies by virtue of its secret pact with Imperial Germany and its subsequent declaration of war against them. It's fairly usual when a nation declares war against you for you to take up arms against that nation. The alternative is that the aggressor then marches their forces against you and conquers you, your forces and your lands: I don't believe that anybody would advocate that latter policy now, let alone 90 years ago.
You seem to have confused the two principles of war and colonisation, they are not the same.

Excellent postings by good old Daverity! This is a topic of the greatest interest to me, but for once I find that another poster has said it all, and there is nothing for me to add. I must say how very much I respect Daverity's thoughtful and plausible analyses here, and his pertinent observations concerning Arab/Jewish enmity.

Originally posted by daverity
Depoix,
This statement totally disregards what is an irrefutable fact with regards to the United States. United States post WWI foreign policy was strictly isolationist in that period and right up to 1941 when the Japanese bombed Pearl Harbour. This is a very well-documented policy and ironically one for which the US has been roundly criticised. It is felt by some students of history that a more involved US may well have checked the spread of 1930's fascism or brought it's downfall a lot quicker.

It's true that Britain certainly wanted a toehold in the area and sympathetic friends, due to it's proximity to the Suez Canal and the trade routes to India and the rest of the Empire. thank you for your responce, the point i was trying to make was that israel has the full back up of the united states,it also receives a great deal of money and military aid from them,britain supplies military aid on a regular basis,the arabs i would presume see this as double standards after the help they were asked for by us and the americans in the last war against germany, israel has nuclear plants yet arabs are not permitted them, israel breaks the un rules and nothing is done about it,i am not antisemetic but i see and read and can side with the palastinians when it comes to some of the tactics used by israel against them, and the blind eye the western world turns when it suits them

Originally posted by depoix
britain supplies military aid on a regular basis

Proof please

Serapis, I have deliberately avoided this Topic whilst it has been running.

I am 64 years old now, and during the majority of years I have been able to read, listen to the radio and absorb the news from that area of the World, the Jewish/Arab/Muslim arguments have been prime news. It reached the point where the problem became bigger than the solution.

Jews and Arab/Muslims lived happily together in a shared country called Palestine for many hundreds of years. That zone was subject to the horrific interference of invasion from the Romans, Saladin and his Muslim supporters, the Christian Crusaders... and in the early 19th century Great Britain.

After WW1, the Western Powers, primarily Great Britain, influenced the whole of the Middle East, from Iraq,Persia (now Iran) to Egypt. The French ruled countries like Libya, Morocco, and I think Tunisia..( I may be wrong on that last one)....

After WW2, the British influence in the area was diluted to include the US, the main result...and the most critical of all, was the creation of a seperate State called Israel, to provide the European Jewry which had suffered terribly under the rule of the Nazi Party in Europe, a country of its own.

Here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israel#Establishment_of_the_State)

From 1948, after the establishment of the division of the lands between Jewish and Palestinian/Arab interests, the situation of discontent has been compounded throughout the Middle East by vested interests in the West.

All I can tell you is that all my adult life, the sore that is the disagreement between the two factions has been a running sore. It will never heal in my lifetime. The ulcer will remain untreated because of the vested interests of both parties, East and West, throughout my children's lifetime, and my Grandchildren's lifetimes.

My best advice is to get used to it being part of your life, as sad as that seems.

Originally posted by serapis
Proof please this is what i mean

http://pubs.socialistreviewindex.org.uk/sr263/hughes.htm

the government has been aiding israel even though it breaks international law

Originally posted by depoix
this is what i mean

http://pubs.socialistreviewindex.org.uk/sr263/hughes.htm

the government has been aiding israel even though it breaks international law

Thanks for the link, ill give it a good read tomorrow as ive just watch back to back lost while drinking a bottle of wine!

Originally posted by depoix
thank you for your responce, the point i was trying to make was that israel has the full back up of the united states,it also receives a great deal of money and military aid from them,britain supplies military aid on a regular basis,the arabs i would presume see this as double standards after the help they were asked for by us and the americans in the last war against germany, israel has nuclear plants yet arabs are not permitted them, israel breaks the un rules and nothing is done about it,i am not antisemetic but i see and read and can side with the palastinians when it comes to some of the tactics used by israel against them, and the blind eye the western world turns when it suits them

Depoix, Yes it's true that Israel benefits from a considerable amount of US aid, that fact is not in dispute. You mention British military aid and I think what you really mean is British arm sales, the two are different. Britain is one of the world's largest suppliers of weoponry and numbers many Arab countries as customers, including Saudi Arabia (the biggest) and Israel's neighbour Jordan. Britain's sales of arms to Israel in 1999 amounts to, as the link you posted states, a mere £11.5 million.

As regards Israel's nuclear plants, perhaps that is a matter for another thread but it is a matter of common knowledge that the chief contributor to their development of a nuclear capability has not been the US, nor Britain. I won't play three guesses with you but instead tell you straight away. France gave more than a helping hand, in fact they were highly instrumental, in assisting the development of the Israeli programme back in the 50's and 60's when they saw the Jewish state as a possible ally against Islamic nationalism in North Africa. That is the same France that now makes massive arms sales to Iran, Saudi Arabia, Syria and just about any country that will buy its wares and because of that likes to promote itself as 'the Arab world's friend.'

You mention about Arab countries not being allowed nuclear capabilities. Maybe there is a touch of duplicity about this but then when you hear the recent rants of the Iranian president with reference to Israel perhaps it does rather make sense that the 'nuclear club' is,if at all possible, kept as exclusive as possible.

BTW, I never thought of you as anti-semitic. I am familiar with a lot of your posts and generally speaking I find them well reasoned, sensible and interesting.

As I understand, Jews and Arabs are of the Semitic "race" and the Hebrew and Arabic languages are classed as Semitic.
So how can support for one side be "anti-semitic"?
Obviousy a US golf club which won't accept Jews, Arabs or Tiger Woods is racist and bigoted, and may be antisemitic and anti-African American, but can an Arab Semite be antisemitic for hating Jews, or a Jew for hating Arabs?

Originally posted by Preacher Man
As good as this sounds for us Brits I would not use wiki to reference a contested subject!

I dont understand what you mean and wondered if you would mind explaining your reasoning for this. Thanks

Originally posted by daverity
Depoix, Yes it's true that Israel benefits from a considerable amount of US aid, that fact is not in dispute. You mention British military aid and I think what you really mean is British arm sales, the two are different. Britain is one of the world's largest suppliers of weoponry and numbers many Arab countries as customers, including Saudi Arabia (the biggest) and Israel's neighbour Jordan. Britain's sales of arms to Israel in 1999 amounts to, as the link you posted states, a mere £11.5 million.

As regards Israel's nuclear plants, perhaps that is a matter for another thread but it is a matter of common knowledge that the chief contributor to their development of a nuclear capability has not been the US, nor Britain. I won't play three guesses with you but instead tell you straight away. France gave more than a helping hand, in fact they were highly instrumental, in assisting the development of the Israeli programme back in the 50's and 60's when they saw the Jewish state as a possible ally against Islamic nationalism in North Africa. That is the same France that now makes massive arms sales to Iran, Saudi Arabia, Syria and just about any country that will buy its wares and because of that likes to promote itself as 'the Arab world's friend.'

You mention about Arab countries not being allowed nuclear capabilities. Maybe there is a touch of duplicity about this but then when you hear the recent rants of the Iranian president with reference to Israel perhaps it does rather make sense that the 'nuclear club' is,if at all possible, kept as exclusive as possible.

BTW, I never thought of you as anti-semitic. I am familiar with a lot of your posts and generally speaking I find them well reasoned, sensible and interesting. i understand your well laid out post, and i am aware of france' arms sales, just dont like what appears to me to be one sided when it comes to the jews and arabs getting aid, always have been a supporter of the under dog, i have no ties to either side as im anglo irish myself but i wish it was worked out a little bit more evenly then things may be better between the two races.....:thumbsup:

Originally posted by depoix
why does britain and america still pour millions of dollars/pounds into israel each year instead of the un ?


Oil??

Originally posted by depoix
i understand your well laid out post, and i am aware of france' arms sales, just dont like what appears to me to be one sided when it comes to the jews and arabs getting aid, always have been a supporter of the under dog, i have no ties to either side as im anglo irish myself but i wish it was worked out a little bit more evenly then things may be better between the two races.....:thumbsup:

In terms of official Government Aid, I think that I am correct in saying that no funds flow through DfID to Israel but funds are provided to the Palestine Authority.

http://www.dfid.gov.uk/countries/allcountries.asp?view=region

Originally posted by cgksheff
In terms of official Government Aid, I think that I am correct in saying that no funds flow through DfID to Israel but funds are provided to the Palestine Authority.

http://www.dfid.gov.uk/countries/allcountries.asp?view=region

I didnt think the UK was providing ANY funding to Israel because the Government is far toooo concerned about ensuring the Arab world is appeased because of their control over OIL.

Originally posted by wendygs
...the Government is far toooo concerned about ensuring the Arab world is appeased because of their control over OIL.

I don't agree.

The Government have a funny way of showing 'appeasement' to the Arab world, what with the invasion of Iraq, new threats of UN action against Iran etc...

If you'd have wrote they wanted to appease certain Arab governments, namely those it has relatively cordial relations with, then I would agree with you, but the entire Arab World? I doubt it.

Originally posted by wendygs
I didnt think the UK was providing ANY funding to Israel because the Government is far toooo concerned about ensuring the Arab world is appeased because of their control over OIL.

I think you will find we are a net exporter of oil so we would not be as bothered as say the USA about this.

Well we all know who wears the pants in the Bush/Blair relationship which speaks for itself. If Bush says he wants something Blair rarely seems to decline.

Why do Jews & Muslims hate each other so much? I know plenty of Jewish and Islamic people, and I have never even seen them fight. Infact they seem to get along quite well.

As I understand, even in the time of the Prophet Mohammed, he traded with people who were Jewish too. I think the problem between them at the moment revolves alot around the Palestine issue - there will always be a great deal of sympathy for the muslim palestinians from other muslims around the world, as there will be for the Jews of the same region by their overseas Jewish counterparts.